F-16 Students skip Phase III

[LookieRookie]

21 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

My understanding is the AUS det is step one of an “innovative program” that, when fully operational, will seek to turn an off the street high school grad into an F35 wingmen in one year.  It accomplishes this by more focused and modern instructional practices, as well as an unspecified use of advanced technology.  I think it will report directly to the AETC/CC.  

Two issues: first, are these kids Os or Es?  So far no discussions I know of touch that problem, which is massive.  Thus I conclude the “kid off the street upgrade” is a long term theoretical goal instead of something the CC actually expects to produce during, or immediately following his tenure.  So I’d say drop attention on that part, it’s not even close to being tried.  

second issue: can this accelerated syllabus be done with a day 1 UPT kid?  Because that’s going to be the most likely test candidate next year.  I copy you guys with experience training UPT kids are all saying no.  And I believe you; I have zero UPT IP experience. However, as an objective observer I submit that you can’t determine the legitimacy of their claims without knowing how they’ll tackle the problem.  That’s the “modern instructional practices” and “advanced technology” aspect of how this is accomplished.  Whatever they’re planning to do differently is why they think they’ll succeed where UPT currently constructed would fail.  So what is it?  

To be clear, I don’t know.  I’ve only seen the edges of this discussion.  But they’ve got something that makes them think their ambitious goal is not unreasonable.  My faith in claims like this, and the AF in general, is at an all time low; nonetheless I’m curious to know more details about this concept.

Is this program in tandem with purchasing new T-6s, ie T-6Cs or T-6Ds?  I saw the white paper talking about purchasing more to get our 1600 pilot production, but I never heard if it was going to happen along with this providing MFDs/HUDs/embedded synthetic training/etc...

[ClearedHot]

9 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:

I hear ya, but I think there's two issues at hand, one I agree with you and one I'm not so sure about. I guess I should ask you, what should the TX embodiment look like if you were king? Other than being part of the near-kleptocratic bidding and contracting process of our rent-seeking-contractor-beholden civilian government, I don't see anything obscene or "unreasonable" about a T-50 to replace the clapped out 38. It's not like the JPATS wasn't a blunder, and let's not get into the F-35. All "success" stories as far as the pocket lining they were intended to create. I'm not condoning it, I'm just saying I live in the world of what things are, though I'd love to live in the world of what things should be.

At any rate, it's [T-50] largely commercially available already, which means your complaint about timelines would not otherwise exist if the procurement process wasn't broken to begin with. That's not KAI's fault, though certainly Lockheed is complicit. Now, just because it isn't a weaponized mission set doesn't mean we have to eat another underpowered handicapped airplane for a trainer just so the CAF doesn't get penis envy, if that's what you were getting at with the "nouveau-F16" reference. F404 power is not some sort of FWA just because it's UPT. Less of that ethnocentrism would do the organization a bunch of good imo.

This week is probably not the best week for me to pipe up about the T-38 replacement all things considered, but it's overdue. That I agree with you wholeheartedly. If the political climate is such that these tragedies actually accelerate the implementation, so be it. I very much look forward to a F404 punching class of airplane in SUPT, and I don't think the world will end if they have to go back to a two-airplane UPT in order to pay for it.

The T-38 is TIRED, that is a given, it must be replaced NOW. 

That being said, I don't think a 9G $30 MILLION trainer is the answer.  Having been forced to look at the "numbers" as a OSD staff weenie, I am not convinced a pseudo F-16 will hold up and bear the fruit you want.  Most current fighters are programmed to fly 250 hours a year at horrible FH costs (F-16 = $22,000 an hour, F-15 +$41,000 and hour, F-22 = $68,000 an hour), and I truly wonder if this aircraft can sustain 500-600 hours a year.  I fully understand that folks going to fighters particularly 5th gen aircraft need to develop the ability to maneuver dynamically under high G, but I wonder is that a function of UPT or IFF?  Most of the bomber folks going through UPT track through T-38's, why in the world do they need a 9G trainer other than the cool factor?

If I were as you suggest king for a day, I would likely have several aircraft in the mix including a jet like Scorpion that has a 7G envelope and has business jet like efficiency AND reliability.  I would beef up IFF and make it longer while equipping them with a jet like the T-50 in a program the truly develops fight pilots, not a top off of UPT skills for everyone.  One of the constant bitches I hear on here is guys need time in the seat.  You will not surge a jet like the T-50 and we certainly can't afford 1,000 of them to make the numbers good.  If we bought something like Scorpion at a cost of less than $20 million that can EASILY fly 1,000+ hours a year at less than $10,000 a flight hour you now have the ability to build airmanship and experience.  The other thing about a jet like Scorpion, you can easily put a radar in it and software that mimics what is found in our 5th gen jets.  The young SNAPs can now go fly for hours practicing the muscle memory required to employ today's high end capabilities.  Think about it, on a standard 5th gen training sortie how often are dudes flying high aspect BFM?  And how often are they driving around in the bozosphere at 3-4 G practicing long range employment or air to ground weapons employment.

Again, I am NOT saying we don;t need a high-end 9G capable trainer for our fighter folks, I just don't think we need that as part of the UPT program.  We need a paradigm shift that allows us to train the best aviators in the world within the economic constraints we are dealing with.

 

[dream big]

God I can’t believe this is a serious idea.  As it is, I’ve been flabbergasted with some of the products coming out of UPT lately..HS grad to F-35 wingman in a year? YGTBFSM! I am legitimately concerned about our lethality as an Air Force in modern conflicts given all the other issues.  How many mishaps have we had in the last few years where the pilot’s basic proficiency was a factor? I’m tired of losing bros because the Air Force is inept at training and equipping it’s pilots properly. 

Also, isn’t the whole pilot shortage issue on the retention side? I understand there is also a bottle neck on the production side/B-course leading into fighter FTUs but what is all this talk really going to solve? 

[BashiChuni]

no way the HS grad - > F-35 wingman in a year is a serious proposal...

[VMFA187]

3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

My understanding is the AUS det is step one of an “innovative program” that, when fully operational, will seek to turn an off the street high school grad into an F35 wingmen in one year.

Sounds like something from the first of the series of Matrix movies. Would love to know more how they plan to do something like this with an 18 year old. Playstation and XBox involved?

[ClearedHot]

43 minutes ago, dream big said:

Also, isn’t the whole pilot shortage issue on the retention side? I understand there is also a bottle neck on the production side/B-course leading into fighter FTUs but what is all this talk really going to solve? 

It is but the powers that be have realized it is a losing battle and they plan to "Grow" out of the hole (sts). 

In other words, the senior decision makers care to make the institutional changes required to fix the retention problem.  They are giving lip service, but have yet to make REAL change.  Also, they demand signal from out joint partners is only getting louder and DoD proper is still directing us to answer at all costs, including breaking the force. 

Something has to give which is why these out of box hair brained schemes are popping up.  AETC tried to surge to 1400 UPT students a year, it was unsustainable (part of my argument on the T-38 replacement). 

As we all know these decisions will be paid for in blood, watch the Class A rate and I am just holding my breath waiting for the next mistake in combat.

I've been saying it for a long time, but I really think we are close to a stop loss, it may be the only thing that stops the system from imploding.

[AZwildcat]

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

The T-38 is TIRED, that is a given, it must be replaced NOW. 

If by NOW you mean IOC of 2024, not fully implemented until 2034....with absolutely no delays, then yes we're on track.

38's are getting cracked open for a structural inspection/overhaul which "should" allow them to fly for 20 more years.  It's a house of cards...as the oldest 38s age out the T-X will come online to replace them.  With a boost in UPT production, the 38 will essentially have zero surge capability.  And that's assuming they can triage all the other stuff on the jet that is starting to break at an exponential rate.

And like you said, the problem is retention right.  Boosting UPT production doesn't fix it.   In 10 years you end up with a couple bloated year groups and another RIF board.  Congratulations Big Blue, you suck again.  Let's focus on quality not quantity, keep pilot production where it is and pour your effort into fixing the other bullshit.  Put a civilian or two in each shop in the squadron, stop BS deployments, figure out a way to streamline the staff queep and make flying staff jobs.  It's 2017, you'd think we could figure out telecommuting for staff.

[Sprkt69]

14 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Some words

I've been saying it for a long time, but I really think we are close to a stop loss, it may be the only thing that stops the system from imploding.

A stop loss will only serve to create a bigger problem later.

[ClearedHot]

18 minutes ago, Sprkt69 said:

A stop loss will only serve to create a bigger problem later.

Since when has the AF cared about later?

[icohftb]

5 hours ago, Danger41 said:

I don't see how the powers that be think this is achievable. Not to sound arrogant, but I would've probably been chosen as one of the test cases because I showed up to UPT as a CFII. I did okay in UPT, but I didn't get adequate at tac form until IFF and to the point where just flying didn't require a serious amount of brain bytes until after that. I did well in the instrument phase and the contact stuff, but the tactical flying required me to develop those skills just like everyone else. If the plan is to have a fully qualified F-35 wingman in 365 days, that's an extremely lofty goal for mass production.

Totally achievable. The concept was proven by Iron Eagle 1-69 30 years ago. Doug Masters retired and is now a GS staff weenie pushing the program. Following F-35 MQT you still need to go back to USAFA for your bachelors tho.

Edited November 24, 2017 by icohftb

[Duck]

ClearedHot is right I’m afraid. The AF has given up on solving the retention issue. They will shove as many kids through the pipe that they can as fast as they can and stop-loss the older guys to train them and teach them. Since they don’t care about you or me and they own these UPT grads for the next decade, it gives them 10 years before they need to worry about the next crisis. And they will all be on the board of Lockheed and Boeing getting paid to solve the situation they were negligent to fix. They will never be held accountable, so it’s an easy decision. This is all a setup to soften Congress to the idea. That’s the reason for the voluntary return. “Well we tried...”

[BFM this]

Regardless of the outcome, this has been the most spirited discussion on the CAF Fighter FB page.  Enough so that I'm wondering if big blue isn't going to shut it down.

[Clark Griswold]

I just figured out where the good idea fairy got this awful idea from:

 

[Clark Griswold]

Looks like they are testing the waters for Stop Loss:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2017/11/21/break-this-force-air-force-warns-cuts-manning-woes-could-hurt-war-zone-fight/

“I don’t think there’s much the Air Force can do right now ... except invoke stop-loss in order to stop this gross departure of pilots,” Venable said. “I had the chief of staff here at the Heritage Foundation [at the beginning of the year] and he said stop-loss is not on the table. But, at one point or another, you’ve got to maintain your combat capability. And if they can’t ... I think he’s going to have to [consider] stop-loss. It would be draconian, everybody would hate it. But I’m not sure what their alternatives are going to be.”

[M2]

41 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

I just figured out where the good idea fairy got this awful idea from:

 

Or...

[NKAWTG]

2 hours ago, Duck said:

ClearedHot is right I’m afraid. The AF has given up on solving the retention issue. They will shove as many kids through the pipe that they can as fast as they can and stop-loss the older guys to train them and teach them. Since they don’t care about you or me and they own these UPT grads for the next decade, it gives them 10 years before they need to worry about the next crisis. And they will all be on the board of Lockheed and Boeing getting paid to solve the situation they were negligent to fix. They will never be held accountable, so it’s an easy decision. This is all a setup to soften Congress to the idea. That’s the reason for the voluntary return. “Well we tried...”

Maybe the Air Force realized it can't solve the retention issue.  Retention is a factor of Ops tempo and civilian opportunity.  In a good economy, people will leave.  In a bad one, people will stay.  Ops commitments have stayed fairly consistent since the early 90s, but we've decided to do it with far fewer people.  They won't go away anytime soon.  

So if the only factors that matter for retention are outside your control, then you need to focus on the inflow, not the outflow.  Open another training base.  Accelerate the T-38 follow on.  Put the safety controls in for a force of mostly young guys, and few old ones.  

One thing I don't get is the fighter community struggles at meeting RAP and upgrading folks right now.  If 1000 fighter pilots magically appeared in the next 5 years, what cockpit would you put them in, and where would you get the flying hours.  

 

[Kenny Powers]

I've been told the Navy is already keeping dudes from getting out. Not sure how or if they're being stop lossed.

 

 

[tk1313]

They let them draw dicks in the sky

[Clark Griswold]

34 minutes ago, M2 said:

Or...

Doug would totally rock this problem out...

If retention is impossible/improbable and you can't grow fast enough then you have to load shed / tap reserve capacity.  In all of this I have not heard the idea floated for Involuntary Mobilization, I don't think they should but T10 - 12304 is fairly broad in scope and doesn't take that much if you get the right people to say yes.

IM under that authority limits you to 200k for only up to 365 days but if you needed dudes that bad you could pull that T-handle but accept the consequences (long term).  Rather than that, offer 3 year ADOS tours with a 50K bonus, no 365 TDYs, no staff work with an offer to continue to 20 years of service at end of orders, ARC folks might be worried about going back to their unit, give them the option of another home if they want (assuming they don't have a civ job to return to). 3,000 man years with bonuses is not cheap but it is not unaffordable either.

Load shedding is the third rail, not sure where a modern AF leader would say we can't give you X and still provide Y and Z, there's just not enough Shlitz.  If it were me, I would probably ask for the Army/Navy/USMC to pick up 15 RPA CAPs (could be exchange personnel at AFBs and using AF RPAs); I would probably ask for relief from the growing non-traditional mission sets (Cyber, ISR PED, etc...) and then I would load shed the big one and ask to drop the air delivered strategic nuclear deterrence mission, switching the strategy of the AF to a tactical nuke air delivered strategy only.  

Reprogram those resources to tap ARC resources in a way to encourage voluntary take ($$$ and specific duties/responsibilities contractually spelled out) and keep the AETC pipeline turned up to 11 for years on end.

 

[flyusaf83]

The problem is they haven’t tried retention yet. If I have to read another stupid article about the AF offering a “massive” bonus increase, I’m gonna die.  They keep touting that $455k bonus without saying that it’s over 13 freaking years, when you’ll be working for half of your base pay for the last 5 years of that contract... yeah, what a deal.  

Push the bonus up to $100k/yr if you care about retention, AF.  Because we all know all of the QoL initiatives are complete bullshit and will not happen.

Edited November 25, 2017 by flyusaf83

[SurelySerious]

7 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Most of the bomber folks going through UPT track through T-38's, why in the world do they need a 9G trainer other than the cool factor?

Pretty severe G forces associated with FNGs trying to not-crash the BUFF. EW passes out every time. 

[di1630]

10 years ago AETC was talking about changing UPT/IFF construct. This is nothing new. Our inept leaders will continue to struggle and the good leaders will not be able to fight thru the bureaucracy any time soon.

As for trainers. Italy has a kickass trainer called the M-346....we just put a USAF guy there in exchange. It’s modern and performs extremely well with much of the radar and TGP functions simulated. Plus there is a light combat version.

Really sad the USAF system has failed to outpace others. Again, poor leadership.

[hindsight2020]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

10 years ago AETC was talking about changing UPT/IFF construct. This is nothing new. Our inept leaders will continue to struggle and the good leaders will not be able to fight thru the bureaucracy any time soon.

As for trainers. Italy has a kickass trainer called the M-346....we just put a USAF guy there in exchange. It’s modern and performs extremely well with much of the radar and TGP functions simulated. Plus there is a light combat version.

Really sad the USAF system has failed to outpace others. Again, poor leadership.

Raytheon pulled out (sts) of the race as partner with *Leonardo for the T-100, which is the platform variant you're referring to. But Leonardo DRS (the US-based front shell company of the *former) is still bidding it on its own, so don't discount them yet. A production aircraft too, with training systems delivery in-house, so they meet the AF requirements for the program in earnest. 

LockMart is a monster though, that's your Goliath. And then you got Boeing, the whiny baby in any competition per usual, where the appeals/litigation is most likely to come from and stall progress at the expense of our National readiness. So by my napkin math it's gonna be more -38 cowbell for all my brothers for the time being. But hey, I'm just a guy trying to come home to the frau and kid after an honest day's effort in the rickety rocket. Doing the bidding for the goddamn House of Saud whilst they tell us we're somehow at max domestic production capacity in the same sentence, and my peers are out flying safe automated whales on the outside paying twice as much. So what the fvck do I know.

Nothing new under the sun though, I'm just saying it would be nice to fly something a little less rode hard and put away wet sometime before my retirement for all my troubles. Wish in one hand and shit on the other type of thing....

Edited November 25, 2017 by hindsight2020
mi "grammer" no está bueno

[HuggyU2]

For those commenting on a reduction in quality graduates, and "it will be paid in blood", I offer this...

https://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/24/us-troops-killed-in-plane-crashes-skyrockets-in-2017.html

[Clark Griswold]

Gonking further on this, WTH would be come of the T-1 Phase III if this dumpster fire of a COA becomes policy?

I don't see AMC, AFSOC, AFMC, etc... ok with deleting half of the training for some of their future pilots and accepting that likely very large and expensive training bill to get them to the experience and proficiency level required to complete their MDS qual.  

ACC for that matter is likely to get shafted with a sizable bill also, again who the f actually thinks this is a good idea?